On March 20, 2008, (form dated March 19) the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) received a complaint under state and federal special education law from XXXXX against the Deerfield School District. This is the department’s decision regarding that complaint. The issue is whether the district, during the 2006-2007 school year, properly determined a child no longer required speech and language services.
The parent maintains her child was dismissed from receiving special education without prior evaluation of each related short-term objective (STO). Specifically, she stated the STO articulation of sounds, use of correct grammatical forms and appropriate volume and pitch were not tested for progress prior to the March 22, 2007, individualized education program (IEP) team meeting.
On March 5, 2007, the parent requested her child be reevaluated for speech and language (SL). The SL pathologist administered a standardized preschool language test in March 2006, and the child scored above-average for language expression. In March 2007, the SL pathologist administered a standardized test of articulation as a measure for IEP progress, interviewed the kindergarten teacher, and met with the parent on several occasions regarding the child’s improved progress on articulation of sounds, use of correct grammatical forms, and appropriate volume and pitch.
On March 22, 2007, an IEP team meeting was held to determine the child’s continued eligibility for SL services, and the parent attended. The SL pathologist discussed the child’s progress with the parent on several occasions prior to the IEP team meeting and at the IEP meeting. The results of a standardized test of articulation showed the child scoring within the normal age limit. Based on this information, the child’s classroom performance, an interview with the kindergarten teacher, and other data collected by the district, the IEP team determined the child no longer required special education services. The parent did not object to this determination at the meeting. However, approximately a year after the IEP team meeting, the parent voiced disagreement with the decision to dismiss her child from SL and requested an evaluation on March 7, 2008. The district is currently proceeding with the evaluation. The department concludes the district, in March 2007, properly determined the child no longer required speech and language services.
This concludes our review of this complaint, which we are closing.
//signed CST 5/19/08
Carolyn Stanford Taylor
Assistant State Superintendent
Division for Learning Support: Equity and Advocacy